Local Government

Summary

Mr C complained that the council repeatedly issued incorrect council tax notices and, when his tenant left, failed to apply exemption he was due for a property he let out. He said they did not record payments he made against his council tax liability, for which he had receipts, and that his hand-delivered letters to council offices were not passed on to the council tax department. The council continued to issue late payment charges, final demands and then summary warrants for the amounts they said he was due, despite his letters questioning the amount he owed. Mr C said the council did not respond reasonably to his communications and complaints.

During the course of our investigation the council resolved Mr C's concerns about his council tax account. They also accepted that they could have responded to his complaints earlier, in line with their complaints procedure.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of a planning application. The planning consent required the developer to fund the creation and operation of a controlled parking zone (CPZ). Mr C said that residents within the CPZ were told during a public consultation that they would receive free parking permits because of the disruption caused by the increased commuter traffic from the development. However, ten years later the council introduced charges for these permits, and said that the initial arrangement with the developer only covered the ten year period. Residents' permits were at first free of charge as the costs were covered by the developer. However, once the ten year agreement came to an end, those costs had to be recovered from the residents.

Although there was clearly an understanding on the part of residents that the parking permits would be provided free of charge indefinitely, we found no evidence of this promise having been made. The evidence indicated that the council's primary concern during the planning process was to secure funding for the new CPZ through a legal agreement with the developer. We took independent advice from our planning adviser, who considered that it would have been inappropriate to attach a longer timescale than ten years to the agreement, and so we did not consider it unreasonable for the council to seek to recover costs after this period expired. We found that the traffic regulation order that introduced the CPZ, and that was publicised at the time, included a warning that the council reserved the right to introduce charges in the future. Mr C also raised concerns about the method the council used to introduce the charges. However, we found that his dispute with them about this was based upon a legal interpretation on which we could not comment.

Mr C made additional complaints about the council's consultation with residents about a proposed extension to the CPZ and the fact that they allowed the development to be occupied before the CPZ was extended, contrary to a planning condition. We were satisfied that the council consulted with affected residents and noted that this led to a change in their position on the extension. Based on advice from our planning adviser, we were also satisfied that it was reasonable to allow the development to be occupied in the circumstances.

Summary

Mrs C complained that, after she objected to her neighbour's planning application, the council allowed significant amendments and changes to it without telling her or allowing her to comment again. They approved the changed application, and Mrs C said that this seriously compromised her privacy. She also complained about the information the council provided in responding to her concerns and about the way they handled her complaint.

We obtained independent advice on this case from one of our planning advisers. Our investigation found that, because of Mrs C's original objections to the planning application, the council required the applicant to make changes to ensure that Mrs C's property was not overlooked. These changes were not, however, significant in terms of planning legislation and were to ensure that the development complied with the council's guidelines. The law did not require the council to advise Mrs C about the variations, there was no requirement for her to be re-notified about them and we found no evidence of any shortcoming in the way in which the planning application was handled. However, we found that a report of handling was not included in the planning register, which is a statutory requirement, and so we upheld the complaint. There was no evidence to suggest that any of the information from council officers was faulty, although their complaints handling was poor, as she was not correctly signposted to the next stage and their final letter to her was not sufficiently specific.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• provide us with evidence that the software problems that caused the situation with registration of the report of handling have now been remedied to their satisfaction;
• make a formal apology for the failures identified; and
• ensure that the officers concerned are aware of the necessity of complying with the council's stated complaints process.

Summary

Mr C's neighbour constructed an extension to their house, which encroached on Mr C's land. Mr C alerted the council to this, and planning enforcement had visited the site. The council took the view that enforcement action would be inappropriate, and then accepted an amendment to the building warrant originally issued for the extension. As the extension as built complied with the amended warrant, the council granted a certificate of completion. Mr C objected to this on the grounds that it allowed a building which did not comply with the original plans to be constructed and then approved retrospectively, regardless of whether it had been built on land belonging to someone else. Mr C complained that the council's response was inadequate, and that it would have been appropriate for them to have taken more direct enforcement action. Although the council did not take enforcement action, they did place the property on the register of planning enforcement, which is a record of breaches of planning control.

Our planning adviser said that the council had acted in accordance with recognised planning custom and practice. He said that enforcement was a discretionary power, and that the council was entitled to take a view on whether the breach of planning conditions was so great that they should require the extension to be pulled down. The adviser also noted that keeping the property on the register of planning enforcement would have consequences for the property owners should they wish to sell their property. He did not consider that the council could be accused of taking no action in this case. He also said that the submission of amended documentation to regularise the planning situation was appropriate and that the council would not have been entitled to refuse these amendments or accept the subsequent completion certificate.

We found that the council had acted reasonably and appropriately.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had not made reasonable efforts to investigate a noise nuisance he reported. We found that the council had made frequent visits to Mr C's property to assess the noise but there were no breaches of relevant noise levels. There was no further action they could take and, therefore, we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council unreasonably demanded payment for works carried out under a statutory notice, without providing an invoice with a detailed breakdown of the costs. He was dissatisfied with the information they provided, and said that they were legally required to provide a detailed invoice, which they had failed to do.

Our investigation found that the council had followed their usual practice when issuing the invoice. Although Mr C considered that they had not met the requirements on the detail that should be provided, they had clearly responded when he requested more information. As we found nothing wrong in their handling of the matter, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of a planning application for a development in his area. He was concerned about the council planning and transportation officers' relationship with the developer and their agent, and believed that officers had acted inappropriately by advising the developer/agent how to circumvent the local plan for the area. Mr C said the planning department had misinterpreted Scottish Government guidance on whether a transport assessment was required for the development and that the planning and transportation departments colluded with a developer's agent to avoid a full traffic assessment.

We obtained independent advice on the case from a planning adviser. Our adviser said that Scottish Government guidance and planning policy made it clear that pre-application discussions between a developer and a council were actively encouraged, and were viewed as adding value at the start of the development management process. The fact that pre-application discussions took place between the developer's agent and the council in this case was, therefore, entirely reasonable.

We found no evidence of the planning department using inappropriate language in communications with the developer or that they became too friendly with the developer or their agent. Not did we find any evidence that the department exceeded their remit in the advice they provided on the local plan. To ensure transparency in the planning process, however, we considered that meetings with developers, including welcome meetings, should be minuted. We found that, on balance, the transport department did not collude with the developer's representative to avoid a traffic impact assessment.

In terms of the requirement for a transport assessment, we concluded that the interpretation of planning guidance was a matter of professional judgment for the council as planning authority. However, before exercising that judgement, the planning committee should have had full information to ensure that their decision was both transparent and well documented. This was a major planning application and the issue of increased traffic was a key matter. We considered that the information was incomplete, both in the report to the committee about the Scottish Government guidance on such assessments and in an external consultants' assessment commissioned by the council on the transport methodology used.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• amend their website to ensure that it accurately reflects the content of their complaints procedure on planning complaints;
• feed back our decision on this complaint to the officers involved to prevent the failings identified occurring in future;
• make sure that their planning and transport departments ensure that relevant Scottish Government guidance and its application is clearly represented in planning reports; and
• provide Mr C with a written apology for the failings identified.

Summary

Mr C reported dampness in his property that he said was caused by the neighbouring council property. Council officers visited the site and tests were carried out on cavity wall insulation. An independent survey commissioned by the council found that the dampness did not come from the council property but said that the lack of a damp proof course at one location might contribute to moisture building up in a cupboard. The council said they would investigate the installation of a damp proof course and carry out the work required to put right the damp course issue. Mr C, however, disputed the survey report saying that it did not accord with what he and his partner were told by the workmen carrying out the tests. When the contractors attended to carry out repairs after the cavity wall tests, Mr C's partner sent them away, so they did not carry out damp proofing work. Mr C said that access to his property was not required to do this. He complained to the council about continuing problems with dampness and that council officers had not responded reasonably to his emails and calls. The council investigated and did not uphold his complaints, so he complained to us.

Our investigation reviewed the survey reports and correspondence between Mr C and the council. We found that the council had clearly established that the dampness in Mr C's property did not originate from the council property. In an effort to help Mr C they had said they would carry out work on one aspect as a goodwill gesture, but they were then refused access to infill the inspection holes opened up when the independent survey was carried out. We found that the council should have been clearer about what they communicated to Mr C but they had confirmed the dampness was not coming from the council property and that they were not responsible for work on the property that Mr C owned. We did not uphold the complaint, but made a recommendation.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• contact Mr C to discuss arrangements for the inspection holes to be re-filled.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to make reasonable adjustments to their service in order to meet his needs. He went to their office to apply for housing benefit, but was unable to use the customer computers to complete an online application due to his disabilities. He, therefore, requested a paper application but due to the nature of his disabilities he needed this on coloured paper and the council only kept stocks of white paper. In complaining about this, Mr C also raised concerns that the council's postal correspondence was sent to him on white paper.

The council noted that they had various options in place to allow customers to access their service. They explained that appointments can be arranged with staff, who can assist with the completion of online applications. Alternatively, customers can apply over the phone or can apply online by visiting their website. We noted Mr C had been able to submit a phone application on the same day he visited the council office. The council also explained that customers can access their benefit accounts online and all correspondence can be viewed. They said that, by offering these alternatives, they were complying with their duties under equality legislation.

As Mr C was able to submit an application over the phone, we were satisfied that there was an accessible option for him and he was not prevented from claiming benefit. We were also satisfied that a reasonable alternative existed for him to view general correspondence, by accessing his online account, and we were not aware of any barriers preventing him from doing so. Although it was not for us to reach a view on the legal position, we were assured that the council had carefully considered whether their service was equipped to meet Mr C's needs, and we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C moved out of a council property. Before moving out he was asked to replace a kitchen and bedroom door and to fill in part of another door where a lock had been fitted. Mr C told us that he carried out these repairs and that a council representative passed them as acceptable. Two months after moving out, Mr C received a bill for the doors as the council said that they had had to replace them, and he complained to us about this.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaint. In response to our investigation the council supplied photographs of the doors that they had replaced, showing clear damage to them. They also supplied their policies which showed that the tenant had to make necessary repairs before vacating the property and allowed the council to recharge the tenant for the costs of replacing any fittings or making repairs. We found no evidence proving that a council representative passed the repairs as acceptable.